Answers 03 · Project feasibility — bankable
Investment return analysis
How does the money move, and is the project worth doing?
The problem
How does the money move, and is the project worth doing?
Every earlier question converges here: does this project pay, how much cash does it need, and when does that cash come back. It is the report a decision actually rests on — which is exactly why the quality of what feeds it matters more than the sophistication of the model.
Most feasibility templates take their own generated cost lines as settled and only let new rows be added underneath. That is backwards. The line most likely to be wrong is the one the template was most confident about — so nothing enters this model until an analyst has checked it against the evidence.
How it is produced
How this report is produced
A full development financial model built line by line — every cost item reviewed and re-derived by an analyst rather than accepted from a template, including the auto-generated ones. Its inputs are not guesses: dwelling counts come from the land division report, prices from market analysis, timing from approval evidence.
Build the cost stack
Acquisition, statutory charges, consultants, construction, finance, sales and contingency — every line reviewed and adjusted by an analyst, including the ones the model generated itself.
Spread it over time
Construction follows an S-curve rather than a straight line, equity and debt are kept separate, and interest is capitalised as it accrues.
Find the peak funding requirement
The number that decides whether the project is fundable is not total cost — it is the deepest point of the cash curve.
Test it against adversity
Prices down, costs up, programme extended — separately and together. A project that only works in the base case is not a project.
What arrives
Inside the report
Full cost breakdown with assumptions stated
Every line itemised with its source and assumption stated, so any number can be traced and challenged.
Cash flow with equity and debt separated
S-curve construction draw, staged drawdowns, interest capitalised as it accrues.
Peak funding and interest
The deepest point of the curve, and what servicing it costs.
Multi-scenario sensitivity
Movement in price, cost and programme, run as separate and combined cases.
Option comparison
Schemes side by side on the same assumptions, stated in full so the numbers survive scrutiny after handover.
What it will not claim
The boundary, stated
Options are compared, never auto-ranked. The recommendation is signed by a professional, and every assumption in the model stays visible to you.
Who needs it
When this report earns its keep
Already own land
What is the optimal scale here, and is it worth moving on.
Read more for your situation →About to commit
Is the approval duration in your financial model a guess, or an estimate?
Read more for your situation →
Before you enquire
Questions we get asked about this report
Where do the inputs come from?
From the other reports where you have them: dwelling yield and envelopes from land division, price indicators from market analysis, programme from the approval evidence. Where an input has not been established, it is flagged as an assumption rather than presented as a finding.
Will you tell me which option is best?
Options are presented side by side and never auto-ranked. A recommendation, when you want one, is made by a named professional who will explain the reasoning — not produced by sorting a column.
Is this a lender-ready document?
It is built in the shape a lender asks questions in, and it is where those conversations usually start. A lender will still run its own credit assessment and may require a certified valuation.
Enquire about the investment return analysis
Every report is scoped to your site. Tell us the address and what you are deciding, and we will confirm scope and fees before anything starts — including if a different report should come first.